C
That video is very out of context. Santorum endorsed Romney in 2008. Things have changed since then, and his explanation of why he supported Romney then and not now seems good to me.
I don't particularly care that he supported his incumbent colleague Specter for re-election despite their obvious political differences; it would be hard for any sitting senator to do otherwise.
However, I have another reason why I'm not for Santorum: that he seems to think there is a morality exception to the 10th Amendment, that the states do not have a right to do anything immoral. Well, no, Senator, that isn't what the 10th Amendment says at all. It's shocking to hear that from someone who claims to be a supporter of the 10th Amendment. He apparently only supports it in an "any stick to beat the dog" way; for it when it agrees with his theocratic tendencies, and against it when it doesn't. That's just like a liberal, except in reverse, not a principled constitutional stand.
I don't particularly care that he supported his incumbent colleague Specter for re-election despite their obvious political differences; it would be hard for any sitting senator to do otherwise.
However, I have another reason why I'm not for Santorum: that he seems to think there is a morality exception to the 10th Amendment, that the states do not have a right to do anything immoral. Well, no, Senator, that isn't what the 10th Amendment says at all. It's shocking to hear that from someone who claims to be a supporter of the 10th Amendment. He apparently only supports it in an "any stick to beat the dog" way; for it when it agrees with his theocratic tendencies, and against it when it doesn't. That's just like a liberal, except in reverse, not a principled constitutional stand.
C
christundivided
Guest
Izdaari said:
I haven't seen an explanation that made sense to me. How can you take an endorsement out of context?
What has changed since 2008 with Romney? RomneyCare was in place, Romney was still a mormon. I can't see anything that has changed. Almost every Republican was for an individual mandate in heathcare BEFORE Obamacare.
I do. In NC.... I can guarantee you that if Richard Burr endorsed Hagan over ANY opponent.... then I would have a serious issue with Burr. Santorum even supported his colleague for PRESIDENT.
Seems convenient for him. I agree there is no room in the 10th amendment for a "morality" exception. The founding Fathers clearly intended for the States to have the responsibility of governing themselves. This is often the least talked aspect of "separations of powers".
christundivided said:
An endorsement can be out of context if the video doesn't make it clear that it is from 2008 and not from 2012.
"What Governor Romney did was betray what he said he was going to be," Santorum told reporters after a rally in Illinois on Monday. "He said he had reformed. He said he was going to be a conservative. Then he went out and proposed and supported the Wall Street bailouts, now he goes out and defends the Romneycare proposal, which is clearly a failure, and one that was clearly a model for Obamacare. And he went out and advocated for his program to be the model for Obamacare."
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/santorum-explains-change-heart-regarding-romney-220717485.html
Seems reasonable to me.
I don't know those NC people. But Specter seemed likely to win the primary, and at the time Santorum probably calculated that if Toomey were the nominee, he would most likely lose the seat to the Democrat, whereas Specter would retain it. That calculation turned out to be incorrect, but it was reasonable.
So far as supporting Specter for president, that was back in 1996, and Santorum explains why he did and admits that was a mistake:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/rick-santorum-my-support-for-arlen-specter-presidential-bid-a-mistake/
Good, I'm glad we agree on that.
Besides the 10th Amendment issue, I have the following problems with Santorum:
1) His voting record in the Senate is too "establishment Republican" on taxes and spending. Romney doesn't especially look better there, but Gingrich and Paul both do.
2) He is far too extreme a social conservative for me. I am a libertarian, not a conservative. On my most conservative days, I might be a libertarian-conservative, but that's as far in that direction as I can go.
And this election NEEDS to be about the economy, not social issues, if we are to beat Obama. Santorum doesn't seem able to stay focused on that. Even if he tries, Obama will be successful in sidetracking it into a social issues debate... in which we will loose the independent voters we need to win, and loose the focus on Obama's bad economy, which we also need.
3) Also, if we are to beat Obama, we need a nominee soon. Delaying it until the convention will give Obama a huge strategic gift and make it unlikely for any Republican to win.
It's time to unite behind Romney, even though he isn't many people's first choice. That includes me btw. I preferred Pawlenty, Huntsman and Johnson in the race, and Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels, who never joined it.
But other than all that, I like Santorum well enough. He's a pleasant enough fellow, and has some good economic and foreign policy ideas. And he can attack while remaining 'nice', not getting into personal attacks, which is very good.